Evolution False? Absolute proof inside.

[AV1611VET]

I don't think av needs to answer that for you to know the answer. His signature says it all.

She's trying to change the subject, and it's not going to work until I get an answer to my excellent point.

 

[Queller]

But I didn't say that and certainly don't believe it

I am not a marine biologist (although my son in law is) but I surmise that even as catastrophic as the Flood was there would be isolated pockets where survival
would occur

And yet you give no examples of how this could happen. You just assert that it did.

see above

They don't and never have the first time either.

Then your proposition is illogical. If only those fish who were most fit to survive were the ones who could live in brackish water, how did we get fish that can only live in salt water and fish that can only live in fresh water?

Bottom line: How did they survive ? I don't know -but they did

Bottom line: you simply claiming something happened does not mean it happened the way you claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Excuse me, chief.

Those are [allegedly] corrections in the word of God.

And if you want to claim that the Bible is the word of God then the burden of proof is upon you. The hundreds of errors in the Bible are indicative that it is the word of man.

What do you call those when applied to your holy science? "improvements"?

There is no "holy science" so I have no idea what you are talking about.

So now, after having said this doosey:

... you're going to try to trivialize it, now that I've caught you on a technicality?

Oops, sorry, I could not read my quote when I hit the quote button. How is that a "doosey" When I hit the quote button for the reply all I could see was your statement and replied incorrectly. I had to edit this.

So what was so extreme about my statement. It was a very reasonable remark. You keep forgetting that the Bible is the word of man, at least until proven otherwise.

I gave you an example of someone's gender being changed, and you call that "minor"?

It is minor compared to some of the other errors in the Bible.

 

[[serious]]

To God eating your own poo is just as unclean as regurgitating it

Chewing cud is the GOOD part of that. They are unclean not because of the poo eating, but because they don't have hooves.

 

[Queller]

So is the KT boundary layer, with all that iridium. It's also seen worldwide and is associated with the same kinds of fossils. Is that also evidence of a global flood? Was it a different flood, or did the one flood just last a really long time?

I've always wondered about YECs response to the KT/KPg layer. Here we have a distinct layer in the geologic record, that occurs just about everywhere on the planet, and it all dates to the same age. This is exactly what we should see if a worldwide flood occurred 4,500 years ago; there would be a flood layer in the geologic record, it would occur all over the planet, and every location would date to the same age. So we know what we should see yet what we should see is not there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Chewing cud is the GOOD part of that. They are unclean not because of the poo eating, but because they don't have hooves.

He may not have seen that because you, and I, and I forgot who the third was since it was late at night and I have barely gotten into my coffee, may now be on his ignore list.

Of course when someone like Tas puts me on ignore I take it as an admission of defeat.

 

[Queller]

Ah yes I admit I am fallible That is where you and I differ. On the question of a Flood however my source (infallible) says there was one.

Only because you interpret the Bible to say that. Your interpretation is no more infallible than other peoples' interpretations that differ from yours.

 

[Queller]

To God eating your own poo is just as unclean as regurgitating it

Even if you had scriptural support for this claim about God, eating your own poo is not the same as chewing the cud.

 

[Queller]

OK I see the technicality and that I came to the wrong conclusion but isn't it about how God wants the Children of Israel to eat "safe" foods and for simplicity sake was including hares as cud chewers (even tho there was a slight difference in the operation)

There is a lot more than a "slight" difference in eating poo and chewing cud. What you are engaged in is a beautiful example of the Mental Olympics PS was talking about.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Maybe in God's eyes there is no difference in re-eating regurgitated food or excreta.

I already addressed this, you can tell from the context of what animals are listed as NOT chewing the cud that eating poo is not inclusive.

 

[TasManOfGod]

Sarah Have you got any more of God's "porky pies"
The last one was a bit of a "fizzer"

 

[PsychoSarah]

Sarah Have you got any more of God's "porky pies"
The last one was a bit of a "fizzer"

I don't know what you mean by "fizzer". But anyways, that was the first one that came to mind. You want more biology issues, or number errors, or cultural errors? There are tons.

Btw, did you read Leviticus 11:6 in context to get a better picture of how chewing the cud cannot be referring to eating excrement (which btw, biblical authors didn't have issues with referring to excrement with clarity when it was relevant)?

Also, I am going to preemptively ask you please don't block me if it ends up you can't deny the errors or give an explanation for them. I dislike debates being dropped like that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sarah Have you got any more of God's "porky pies"
The last one was a bit of a "fizzer"

Translation, Tasman ended up looking foolish.

He "fizzed".

By the way TasMan, Why do you call the errors in the Bible "God's 'porky pies'"? The errors in the Bible are man's errors, not God's errors.

 

[TasManOfGod]

I don't know what you mean by "fizzer". But anyways, that was the first one that came to mind. You want more biology issues, or number errors, or cultural errors? There are tons.

Btw, did you read Leviticus 11:6 in context to get a better picture of how chewing the cud cannot be referring to eating excrement (which btw, biblical authors didn't have issues with referring to excrement with clarity when it was relevant)?

Also, I am going to preemptively ask you please don't block me if it ends up you can't deny the errors or give an explanation for them. I dislike debates being dropped like that.

Here is an explanation that may help:

However the Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’. Coneys and rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification (and a creationist), at first classified them as ruminants. Also, rabbits and hares practise refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’. The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.

As for putting people on ignore as if I need to do this to "win an argument" well forget it. If you happen to use a sock in an attempt to deceive or call me by an insulting name I will have no hesitation in putting you on my ignore list.

 

[bhsmte]

Here is an explanation that may help:

As for putting people on ignore as if I need to do this to "win an argument" well forget it. If you happen to use a sock in an attempt to deceive or call me by an insulting name I will have no hesitation in putting you on my ignore list.

Where does this paranoia in regards to sock accounts come from?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is an explanation that may help:

As for putting people on ignore as if I need to do this to "win an argument" well forget it. If you happen to use a sock in an attempt to deceive or call me by an insulting name I will have no hesitation in putting you on my ignore list.

No one has used socks on you. The fact that several people may use the same argument against you is only clear evidence that you made an obvious mistake.

And yes, Linnaeus was a creationist. He predated the theory of evolution and could not develop it himself. So it is not quite honest to call him a creationist. He did not have the ability to oppose the idea of evolution. You can't oppose something that does not exist and the theory of evolution did not exist in his time. He was the first to realize that people are apes.

Linnaeus put people in the same classification as other apes and admitted that we are apes.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Here is an explanation that may help:

As for putting people on ignore as if I need to do this to "win an argument" well forget it. If you happen to use a sock in an attempt to deceive or call me by an insulting name I will have no hesitation in putting you on my ignore list.

I didn't mean it as an insult, you have just blocked a lot of people already and I would rather avoid that. Also, that still wouldn't be chewing cud, and if it were considered chewing cud, there would be a lot more animals mentioned as being "unclean yet chewing cud" than are in the bible, since many more animals eat their own poo but don't do the regurgitation thing.

Also, I would rather you come up with your own explanations than copy and paste.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where does this paranoia in regards to sock accounts come from?

Late last night three of us all pointed out the same error that he made. Therefore we were "socks" in his opinion and he put all three of us on ignore.

All that it really showed is that he made an obvious mistake.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Late last night three of us all pointed out the same error that he made. Therefore we were "socks" in his opinion and he put all three of us on ignore.

All that it really showed is that he made an obvious mistake.

Which three people? I might be able to vouch for you not being sock accounts since I have been on here longer than Tas.

 

[TasManOfGod]

Where does this paranoia in regards to sock accounts come from?

God